2 million cash pumped into the business in return for shares. Reported at companies house.

Edited December 6, 20214 yr by Mounts Kipper

52 minutes ago, Ani said:

Why do you cut the quote short from Niaz ?

We managed to make significant progress within the finance function, thanks to my super team,’ Shazad says. ‘The club is on a far better footing now and can hopefully go on to secure promotion this season.’

Doesn't fit the rhetoric, although to be fair the benefit wouldn't be seen until this financial year - none of the points are major issues... Couple of management points from the auditors nothing more.

Will someone please just tell us when the tennis balls need to come out.

They'll be in short supply with Wimbledon being on so need to start stocking up.

16 minutes ago, gonzo said:

Will someone please just tell us when the tennis balls need to come out.

They'll be in short supply with Wimbledon being on so need to start stocking up.

The plan is to pick up some used ones post Wimbledon. I am already looking at trains to QPR just so I can boo

50 minutes ago, DLH said:

FWIW, I don't think they'd have budgeted a £14.3m loss, we'd have budgeted to make at least the playoffs so additional revenue missed from that, and I'll hazard a guess we didn't plan to sack the management team. Lets say that's a loss of revenue of and cost of about £1.5m (wild guess) but you'd be looking at a loss of £12.5-£13m assuming that, its probably wrong, as I have absolutely no idea what the plans were.

In terms of the below;

This "provision" are you talking about the £20m creditor for shares? That's the only figure near £20m mentioned in the accounts. Which isn't a provision... its a genuine creditor at the balance sheet date. Only provisions for cost I can see (and I've not wasted hours looking in detail) are £1.1m of accruals.

Per the notes, the Equity position of the business is in essence understated by £20m at the year end due to the issues with the allocation of shares. If you want a truer reflection of liabilities and equity - reduce the creditors due within one year by £20,150,000 and increase the share premium account by the same amount - it'll be there or there abouts in terms of a truer Equity position of the business.

As for the additional £9m of shares acquired on the 1st August (which again I think you are including in the black hole), you'd need to see the budget.... may well have been planned, may link into the calendar of bonuses paid by Trafigura, I have no idea.

The only black hole I can see is anyone with any knowledge needed to make a true judgement on the health or not of the financial statements.

16 hours ago, jmjhb said:

Think energy usage is the big one.

What like turning the lights off and not using the pitch lamps etc? I get that a football's club energy bill will be enormous, but the changes you'd make surely can't be enough to bring down costs by that much? also begs the question why now and not previously?

1 hour ago, DLH said:

FWIW, I don't think they'd have budgeted a £14.3m loss, we'd have budgeted to make at least the playoffs so additional revenue missed from that, and I'll hazard a guess we didn't plan to sack the management team. Lets say that's a loss of revenue of and cost of about £1.5m (wild guess) but you'd be looking at a loss of £12.5-£13m assuming that, its probably wrong, as I have absolutely no idea what the plans were.

In terms of the below;

This "provision" are you talking about the £20m creditor for shares? That's the only figure near £20m mentioned in the accounts. Which isn't a provision... its a genuine creditor at the balance sheet date. Only provisions for cost I can see (and I've not wasted hours looking in detail) are £1.1m of accruals.

Per the notes, the Equity position of the business is in essence understated by £20m at the year end due to the issues with the allocation of shares. If you want a truer reflection of liabilities and equity - reduce the creditors due within one year by £20,150,000 and increase the share premium account by the same amount - it'll be there or there abouts in terms of a truer Equity position of the business.

As for the additional £9m of shares acquired on the 1st August (which again I think you are including in the black hole), you'd need to see the budget.... may well have been planned, may link into the calendar of bonuses paid by Trafigura, I have no idea.

The only black hole I can see is anyone with any knowledge needed to make a true judgement on the health or not of the financial statements.

Yes the £20.15m provision is what I'm talking about.

It was delayed through in being put in as shares by the EFL, shown as a creditor and went in following the accounts and reported accordingly.

The point was that it didn't cover the £27m that was required to take the club out of negative equity.

£30m was required not the £20.15m provision.

There was a £7m discrepancy in their planning.

Even putting that aside, after the £10m was put in at the start of last season it left FV with £3m in the pot and nothing more has been put in that we've been notified of - agreed?

I think you would also agree that the club will not be reporting a profit for in the June 2026 accounts - yes?

The position the club now seems to find itself in is having nothing in the pot for this coming season, apparently capped at only being allowed to invest a maximum £15m in equity and no doubt having another trading deficit at the end of it - keeping the club solvent being the first priority from funds available - would you disagree?

And the same will apply the following season too - would it not?

@Ani As for the Niaz Shazad quote, what I was showing was the period he was there during the accountancy period 1st July 24 - 30th June 25.

He was appointed in August 24 and the quote was what he found and had to work to / improve - it was the environment of what the previous CFO had compiled the budgets for the accountancy period we are discussing.

His improvement would only be beneficial to the budget preparation for the following years accounts (the one just ended).

I left the final part of his quote out because it wasn't relevant to the discussion and even DLH was decent enough to acknowledge this point as such.

It wasn't because "it didn't fit the rhetoric" I don't need to play those games - if I'm wrong I will admit it, I hold my hand up in real life, I simple can't understand those that won't on a social media platform where no one knows you and it matters fuck all if you are right or wrong to everyone else other than to yourself.

I'm not an accountant, I don't have 20 years post qualification in the discipline, my career was as a Company Secretary, I'm happy to be put right by those who should know from the accounts what happened and the direction of travel the club is going. I explain why I arrive at the statements I make and I'm prepared to listen to others who may have different views. If I can shoot down those views I will, if they can shoot down my logic then I will accept it even with DLH, I stated above that apart from the £20m investment rather than the £30m actually required I agreed with the rest he had wrote...

11 hours ago, Sluffy said:

I can't prove it obviously but something big caused FV to put in an unexpected £10m - and I can only think making an error of not taking the previous years £11.1m trading loss being the only thing big enough to account for it?

The rest of what you say would then be true - FV budgeted for a loss, it may well have been £14.3m. £20.15m was put in to cover the trading loss and the cash flow came within £0.5m

Maybe the £10m was delayed to coincide with something (Trafigura bonuses) perhaps rather it resulting from an error of omission but until proved otherwise I still stand by everything else I've said namely the the total shareholder equity showed a black hole of £27.06m on the accounts that all of our three accountants on the forum have failed to acknowledge - I don't know why as it is there in the audited accounts in black and white - and that as things now stand we are in negative equity (if the 2026 accounts trading loss is in excess of £3m) that we are limited under SCR to investing more than £33m in the next three years and can only put in a maximum of £15m per any one year.

There's going to be annual losses still and not much spare to build a squad either this season or strengthen it much in the next two.

That can change if FV have put in substantial investment prior to SCR starting but so far nothing has been reported that they have.

I'm happy for anyone to shoot me down, I see it has having learned something I hadn't known rather than it being some sort of insult to my dignity.

I rather be wrong and the club be in a healthy financial position, than be right and it isn't.

Wouldn't we all?

10 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Yes the £20.15m provision is what I'm talking about.

It was delayed through in being put in as shares by the EFL, shown as a creditor and went in following the accounts and reported accordingly.

The point was that it didn't cover the £27m that was required to take the club out of negative equity.

£30m was required not the £20.15m provision.

There was a £7m discrepancy in their planning.

I'd look again.... And maybe read the below....

4 hours ago, DLH said:

Per the notes, the Equity position of the business is in essence understated by £20m at the year end due to the issues with the allocation of shares. If you want a truer reflection of liabilities and equity - reduce the creditors due within one year by £20,150,000 and increase the share premium account by the same amount - it'll be there or there abouts in terms of a truer Equity position of the business.

So the mystical black hole is the £20m creditor and the £7m negative equity... The £20m increases the equity in the business, so what would actually happen is that if the shares had been allocated the Equity position would have moved from £7m negative to positive £13m .... We happy now?

35 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Yes the £20.15m provision is what I'm talking about.

It was delayed through in being put in as shares by the EFL, shown as a creditor and went in following the accounts and reported accordingly.

The point was that it didn't cover the £27m that was required to take the club out of negative equity.

£30m was required not the £20.15m provision.

There was a £7m discrepancy in their planning.

Even putting that aside, after the £10m was put in at the start of last season it left FV with £3m in the pot and nothing more has been put in that we've been notified of - agreed?

I think you would also agree that the club will not be reporting a profit for in the June 2026 accounts - yes?

The position the club now seems to find itself in is having nothing in the pot for this coming season, apparently capped at only being allowed to invest a maximum £15m in equity and no doubt having another trading deficit at the end of it - keeping the club solvent being the first priority from funds available - would you disagree?

And the same will apply the following season too - would it not?

@Ani As for the Niaz Shazad quote, what I was showing was the period he was there during the accountancy period 1st July 24 - 30th June 25.

He was appointed in August 24 and the quote was what he found and had to work to / improve - it was the environment of what the previous CFO had compiled the budgets for the accountancy period we are discussing.

His improvement would only be beneficial to the budget preparation for the following years accounts (the one just ended).

I left the final part of his quote out because it wasn't relevant to the discussion and even DLH was decent enough to acknowledge this point as such.

It wasn't because "it didn't fit the rhetoric" I don't need to play those games - if I'm wrong I will admit it, I hold my hand up in real life, I simple can't understand those that won't on a social media platform where no one knows you and it matters fuck all if you are right or wrong to everyone else other than to yourself.

I'm not an accountant, I don't have 20 years post qualification in the discipline, my career was as a Company Secretary, I'm happy to be put right by those who should know from the accounts what happened and the direction of travel the club is going. I explain why I arrive at the statements I make and I'm prepared to listen to others who may have different views. If I can shoot down those views I will, if they can shoot down my logic then I will accept it even with DLH, I stated above that apart from the £20m investment rather than the £30m actually required I agreed with the rest he had wrote...

Maybe the £10m was delayed to coincide with something (Trafigura bonuses) perhaps rather it resulting from an error of omission but until proved otherwise I still stand by everything else I've said namely the the total shareholder equity showed a black hole of £27.06m on the accounts that all of our three accountants on the forum have failed to acknowledge - I don't know why as it is there in the audited accounts in black and white - and that as things now stand we are in negative equity (if the 2026 accounts trading loss is in excess of £3m) that we are limited under SCR to investing more than £33m in the next three years and can only put in a maximum of £15m per any one year.

There's going to be annual losses still and not much spare to build a squad either this season or strengthen it much in the next two.

That can change if FV have put in substantial investment prior to SCR starting but so far nothing has been reported that they have.

I'm happy for anyone to shoot me down, I see it has having learned something I hadn't known rather than it being some sort of insult to my dignity.

I rather be wrong and the club be in a healthy financial position, than be right and it isn't.

Wouldn't we all?

great post

21 minutes ago, DLH said:

I'd look again.... And maybe read the below....

So the mystical black hole is the £20m creditor and the £7m negative equity... The £20m increases the equity in the business, so what would actually happen is that if the shares had been allocated the Equity position would have moved from £7m negative to positive £13m .... We happy now?

Nope I'm still struggling.

But I'm beginning to understand why.

I've been talking about the COMPANY Statement of changes in equity, you are talking about the GROUP Statement of changes in equity.

I've not previously realised the nuance between the two, as shares are bought in FV (the company) not the club or hotel (ie the group).

I knew however that the company subsidies the losses of the group.

The COMPANY is showing a negative share equity of £25m in the June 2025 accounts, my understanding was that the £20m be set against that to pay down that negative equity accruing from the money had loaned to the club (and subsequently waived) to settle previous trading losses and not new money into the football club.

I guess it still could be if FV choose not to pass on the £20m to the GROUP although that seems very unlikely,

Presumably if I understand you to be correct then the £20m that should have gone in on the last accounts but were delayed by the EFL would have resulted in the Company deficit now being £5m and as you say the group now showing a £13m surplus. (with the following £9m showing the in surplus of £4m and the group having £22m in the pot (less the trading loss for the 26-26 season) which is vastly more sensible position to be in than that which I had thought we were).

If so I thank you for your time, effort, trouble and patience in enlightening me.

I've learned something I had not known and will be better informed in the future - isn't it what we are all doing, simply trying to understand what is happening in the club we all support.

If I got things wrong and I seemingly have based on what you've explained to me, it wasn't for any malicious or self seeking reasons, just purely to understand what was going on for my own benefit and to share what I understood (or thought I understood) by showing my workings out and linked to the sources, and seeking if anyone knew any better.

Cue the tirade of abuse that will no doubt follow from my usual fan club.

Enjoy your day folks!

Edited July 1Jul 1 by Sluffy

33 minutes ago, Sluffy said:

Presumably if I understand you to be correct then the £20m that should have gone in on the last accounts but were delayed by the EFL would have resulted in the Company deficit now being £5m and as you say the group now showing a £13m surplus. (with the following £9m showing the in surplus of £4m and the group having £22m in the pot (less the trading loss for the 26-26 season) which is vastly more sensible position to be in than that which I had thought we were).

Correct.

1 hour ago, Sluffy said:

Nope I'm still struggling.

But I'm beginning to understand why.

I've been talking about the COMPANY Statement of changes in equity, you are talking about the GROUP Statement of changes in equity.

I've not previously realised the nuance between the two, as shares are bought in FV (the company) not the club or hotel (ie the group).

I knew however that the company subsidies the losses of the group.

The COMPANY is showing a negative share equity of £25m in the June 2025 accounts, my understanding was that the £20m be set against that to pay down that negative equity accruing from the money had loaned to the club (and subsequently waived) to settle previous trading losses and not new money into the football club.

I guess it still could be if FV choose not to pass on the £20m to the GROUP although that seems very unlikely,

Presumably if I understand you to be correct then the £20m that should have gone in on the last accounts but were delayed by the EFL would have resulted in the Company deficit now being £5m and as you say the group now showing a £13m surplus. (with the following £9m showing the in surplus of £4m and the group having £22m in the pot (less the trading loss for the 26-26 season) which is vastly more sensible position to be in than that which I had thought we were).

If so I thank you for your time, effort, trouble and patience in enlightening me.

I've learned something I had not known and will be better informed in the future - isn't it what we are all doing, simply trying to understand what is happening in the club we all support.

If I got things wrong and I seemingly have based on what you've explained to me, it wasn't for any malicious or self seeking reasons, just purely to understand what was going on for my own benefit and to share what I understood (or thought I understood) by showing my workings out and linked to the sources, and seeking if anyone knew any better.

Cue the tirade of abuse that will no doubt follow from my usual fan club.

Enjoy your day folks!

You wont get no abuse from me. Why may you ask....because since you returned to this forum in the last month you have been wrong about everything you have commented on. You went out the way to tell me FV and the Swiss are the same people. One from each group are brothers and they are all on the same page but they are two groups.

Then you went on about me being someone else....Not a clue where you got that from. You also said the same with another on here who said he had never been on the aptly named nuts.

I knew that you would be wrong on this despite me not fully understanding what you was on about. Auditors do not sign a 20m black hole away

Chill out its a football forum, maybe you might get something right before the season starts, but abuse that is not my style.

So in summary the 'black hole' was just timing of the conversion of related party loans (likely the Trafigura crew) to equity. Like @DLH said using 'normal' businesses as a comparison is useless because of owner subsidies.

So the substantive issue is can we live within the new regulations? So best thing to do is to benchmark to a similar peer like I suggested rather than trying to use our of date figures as a start point which @Eddie told you was a fools errand.

4 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Nope I'm still struggling.

But I'm beginning to understand why.

I've been talking about the COMPANY Statement of changes in equity, you are talking about the GROUP Statement of changes in equity.

I've not previously realised the nuance between the two, as shares are bought in FV (the company) not the club or hotel (ie the group).

I knew however that the company subsidies the losses of the group.

The COMPANY is showing a negative share equity of £25m in the June 2025 accounts, my understanding was that the £20m be set against that to pay down that negative equity accruing from the money had loaned to the club (and subsequently waived) to settle previous trading losses and not new money into the football club.

I guess it still could be if FV choose not to pass on the £20m to the GROUP although that seems very unlikely,

Presumably if I understand you to be correct then the £20m that should have gone in on the last accounts but were delayed by the EFL would have resulted in the Company deficit now being £5m and as you say the group now showing a £13m surplus. (with the following £9m showing the in surplus of £4m and the group having £22m in the pot (less the trading loss for the 26-26 season) which is vastly more sensible position to be in than that which I had thought we were).

If so I thank you for your time, effort, trouble and patience in enlightening me.

I've learned something I had not known and will be better informed in the future - isn't it what we are all doing, simply trying to understand what is happening in the club we all support.

If I got things wrong and I seemingly have based on what you've explained to me, it wasn't for any malicious or self seeking reasons, just purely to understand what was going on for my own benefit and to share what I understood (or thought I understood) by showing my workings out and linked to the sources, and seeking if anyone knew any better.

Cue the tirade of abuse that will no doubt follow from my usual fan club.

Enjoy your day folks!

All those Dostoevsky-length posts, and you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about from the start. 🤦‍♂️

1 hour ago, RoadRunnerFan said:

So the substantive issue is can we live within the new regulations? So best thing to do is to benchmark to a similar peer like I suggested rather than trying to use our of date figures as a start point which @Eddie told you was a fools errand.

Yes, we'll be absolutely fine.

7 hours ago, boltonboris said:

What like turning the lights off and not using the pitch lamps etc? I get that a football's club energy bill will be enormous, but the changes you'd make surely can't be enough to bring down costs by that much? also begs the question why now and not previously?

I think it's more being tied into deals when in the shit but are now in the position to negotiate it

Funny this.

@DLH you’ve got some patience, fair play.

@Sluffy please feel free to use that multi-quote function to highlight how many times you declared yourself to be completely proven right - it might be your longest post yet.

33 minutes ago, jmjhb said:

Yes, we'll be absolutely fine.

I hope other clubs and agents aren't reading this, we're telling everybody we're potless 😄

2 minutes ago, Greg_BWFC said:

I hope other clubs and agents aren't reading this, we're telling everybody we're potless 😄

They aren't. Believe me, they aren't.

28 minutes ago, Eddie said:

@DLH you’ve got some patience, fair play.

Was touch and go to be fair

1 hour ago, Dr. Feelgood said:

They aren't. Believe me, they aren't.

Agent 1: I reckon we can fleece BWFC, I’ve heard they’re being taken over by billionaires

Agent 2: Give me a minute, I’ve a username on Bolton’s best forum Wanderers Ways I’ll be able suss out what the story is with their finances…

Agent 2: (two days later…) I’ve not a fucking clue, it’s been taken over by Sluffy the vampire slayer, I’ve fallen asleep a few times trying to work out what the crack is…

Declan Price

1 hour ago, desperado said:

Agent 1: I reckon we can fleece BWFC, I’ve heard they’re being taken over by billionaires

Agent 2: Give me a minute, I’ve a username on Bolton’s best forum Wanderers Ways I’ll be able suss out what the story is with their finances…

Agent 2: (two days later…) I’ve not a fucking clue, it’s been taken over by Sluffy the vampire slayer, I’ve fallen asleep a few times trying to work out what the crack is…

Glad you put that because I'm sat here thinking "what the fooks going on".

If you can't compare it to a twix then I'm not interested.

4 hours ago, Eddie said:

@Sluffy please feel free to use that multi-quote function to highlight how many times you declared yourself to be completely proven right - it might be your longest post yet.

I was bang on with this one

On 29/06/2026 at 17:06, Sluffy said:

...challenged Eddie and Road Runner to prove me wrong - and they won't...

12 hours ago, Sluffy said:

Nope I'm still struggling.

But I'm beginning to understand why.

I've been talking about the COMPANY Statement of changes in equity, you are talking about the GROUP Statement of changes in equity.

I've not previously realised the nuance between the two, as shares are bought in FV (the company) not the club or hotel (ie the group).

I knew however that the company subsidies the losses of the group.

The COMPANY is showing a negative share equity of £25m in the June 2025 accounts, my understanding was that the £20m be set against that to pay down that negative equity accruing from the money had loaned to the club (and subsequently waived) to settle previous trading losses and not new money into the football club.

I guess it still could be if FV choose not to pass on the £20m to the GROUP although that seems very unlikely,

Presumably if I understand you to be correct then the £20m that should have gone in on the last accounts but were delayed by the EFL would have resulted in the Company deficit now being £5m and as you say the group now showing a £13m surplus. (with the following £9m showing the in surplus of £4m and the group having £22m in the pot (less the trading loss for the 26-26 season) which is vastly more sensible position to be in than that which I had thought we were).

If so I thank you for your time, effort, trouble and patience in enlightening me.

I've learned something I had not known and will be better informed in the future - isn't it what we are all doing, simply trying to understand what is happening in the club we all support.

If I got things wrong and I seemingly have based on what you've explained to me, it wasn't for any malicious or self seeking reasons, just purely to understand what was going on for my own benefit and to share what I understood (or thought I understood) by showing my workings out and linked to the sources, and seeking if anyone knew any better.

Cue the tirade of abuse that will no doubt follow from my usual fan club.

Enjoy your day folks!